search

bjc-edc / bjc-r

The Beauty and Joy of Computing public resource repository.
http://bjc.edc.org/
12 stars 20 forks source link

U2 ADA Fixes #12

Open lmock opened 6 years ago

lmock commented 6 years ago

Needs more descriptive links & fixing tables

maryfries commented 6 years ago

@stezel I'll take care of the two Optional Projects issues; can you take care of the others?

stezel commented 6 years ago

@lmock @maryfries There were some missing titles for links I took care of those, but it is not clear to me how to make a link more descriptive than giving the title of the page it is linking to. I need some examples to make sense of these suggestions.

maryfries commented 6 years ago

Here's what I think might be an example...

Here's 2.1.1 as it was: image

Here's are two suggested methods for correction: image or image

@lmock can you please confirm if these meet the need and let us know if you/UCB have/has a preference between the two methods (in general—not just here)?

@stezel if Lauren approves of both and has no preference, can you see if Paul does?

Thank you both!

brianharvey commented 6 years ago

I vote for the sidenote version. That sentence is too long already! :-)

On 10/30/17 11:36 AM, Mary wrote:

Here's what I think might be an example...

Here's 2.1.1 as it was: image

Here's are two suggested methods for correction: image or image

@lmock can you please confirm if these meet the need and let us know if you/UCB have/has a preference between the two methods (in general—not just here)?

@stezel if Lauren approves of both and has no preference, can you see if Paul does?

Thank you both!

maryfries commented 6 years ago

Paul agrees that the sidenote is better. I'll sync it. Let's wait for an OK from Lauren before implementing throughout. Thanks!

stezel commented 6 years ago

We have perhaps a hundred ( more ?) links in the curriculum that refers back to different parts of the curriculum. Sometimes in a single sentence we have multiple references to different parts of the curriculum. Are we suggesting that each of these references are recreated in this yellow box format? Do we know that these extra boxes are helpful in the ADA situation?

EPaulG commented 6 years ago

I don’t know about whether side notes help or harm from the perspective of ADA. I have never been convinced that the cross-referencing adds utility and I am convinced that it reduces readability. Ultimately, we need some kind of index, but that is not a priority for now.

My strong advice would be not to try going through the entire curriculum to “correct” this from in-text references to sidenotes now. Instead, we should think and talk about what is a good general solution (in my mind, that’s an index, but we should all get to think about that), and only then, if we have time, implement it. Otherwise, we’re doing ad hoc fixes that we might later wind up rethinking and having to re-do.

—P

From: stezel notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com> Reply-To: bjc-edc-2017-18/bjc-r reply@reply.github.com<mailto:reply@reply.github.com> Date: Monday, October 30, 2017 at 12:06 PM To: bjc-edc-2017-18/bjc-r bjc-r@noreply.github.com<mailto:bjc-r@noreply.github.com> Cc: Subscribed subscribed@noreply.github.com<mailto:subscribed@noreply.github.com> Subject: Re: [bjc-edc-2017-18/bjc-r] U2 ADA Fixes (#12)

We have perhaps a hundred ( more ?) links in the curriculum that refers back to different parts of the curriculum. Sometimes in a single sentence we have multiple references to different parts of the curriculum. Are we suggesting that each of these references are recreated in this yellow box format? Do we know that these extra boxes are helpful in the ADA situation?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/bjc-edc-2017-18/bjc-r/issues/12#issuecomment-340494186, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKrnasdC6lfrvuu6VvBgJ72URsOgT-kaks5sxfQYgaJpZM4QGC_H.

cycomachead commented 6 years ago

There's honestly no way to know what's best, because what we're dealing with is an opinion. Frankly, it's one I think is misleading. This page has the official description of what the rule means.

https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/navigation-mechanisms-refs.html

The sections for success criterion and failures. The wording is all quite ambiguous because there's (obviously) no good test of when content is perfectly clear.

Note that the description uses the word "purpose". So far in all their communication, it seems like Berkeley is fixated on the destination of a link. To me, that's completely at odds with what the standards are. If they're not following standards, then we're just guessing blindly at what to fix.

IMO, the current version is better because it describes why you'd be going to a new page. (i.e. The text "loops" is more indicative of why you'd visit a page than a page title describing a ton of different actions.)

The reason Berkeley thinks the links are good is because a screen reader user will often navigate a page out of context. (for example, by looking only at the headings, and then only at the links.) in that case, the sidetone version would accomplish that better because it's more descriptive and the order isn't too important.

However, if a SR user is reading a page linearly, then the sidetone version is more difficult to use because the ordering of the page and text isn't as clear. (Assuming they need that link.)

But, ultimately the coherence of the content matters most. It's absolutely daft to make sentences more confusing for 100% of users just to have more verbose links. That is, ironically and infuriatingly, it's own accessibility issue.

In the end: I think the sidetone is better because the actual text is the most clear. I don't know that all the back links are that necessary, but they do seem like a nice thing to be able to have.

However, perhaps the solution is to use them in the EDC curriculum but not in edX. The audit and rules only matter for the edX site.

Please also tag me on issues (or assign them to me) if there's some confusion and then I'll see it. But I don't get notifications for the repo.

lmock commented 6 years ago

@stezel @maryfries sorry for the late reply. I think the in-line version is better for accessibility than the side note version, however Berkeley doesn't seem to have a problem with side notes.

stezel commented 6 years ago

@maryfries Hi Mary, I have addressed all these except the last two issues on color contrast and table fix for the optional projects. I cannot tell from the html of the pages if you were able to address these. Please let me know so I can close this thread.

maryfries commented 6 years ago

@cycomachead are the red/yellow/green text colors now on http://localhost/bjc-r/cur/programming/2-complexity/optional-projects/1-magic8ball.html now ok? Brian made some edits.

cycomachead commented 6 years ago

I think the red and yellow on most backgrounds will still be problematic. This page makes it easy to check (you need to hit a value of 4.5) https://contrast-ratio.com/#%231b827f-on-white

maryfries commented 6 years ago

@brianharvey I suggest we just remove the color. There is no need to show kids what color red, yellow, and green are (unlike some of those HEX colors). Everyone knows. :)

maryfries commented 5 years ago

@brianharvey can you look at my suggestion from 10/3/18: just remove the color. Can I just do that and close this issue?